|
Hi Paul,
I agree. In this case no solution was found for the original question and the thread turned into an unreadable mess that would only serve to waste the time of someone seeking a solution.
Usually, I get good or great responses from this forum. People usually read, think then answer (even if the correct solution is not given). Maybe I just asked on a bad day.
shwaguy
|
|
|
|
|
shwaguy wrote: Maybe I just asked on a bad day.
Or, more likely, you asked a poorly defined question and are now upset and pouting. 
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
beatit fool....read the code comments of my original code and the posting. Your wrong, stop flaming.
I am starting to think taht a large portion of your 3500 posts were garbage posts.
|
|
|
|
|
shwaguy wrote: the original question
It did sound rather vague.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Putting aside the 2 replies I got being totally off topic:
- "what error message did you get?" - uh...none...I got a null value as stated.
- replace code that was stated as working search.Filter = "samaccountname=" + userName; with this other filter that works equally well too (blah, blah, blah).
Whats vague about the post?:
//this filter works
search.Filter = "samaccountname=" + userName;
//This below formats for the search filter result in result=null
//search.Filter = String.Format("(cn={0})", userName); //code project filter
//search.Filter = "cn=" + userName;
SearchResult result = search.FindOne();
shwaguy
|
|
|
|
|
The original post was rather vague. Not the ones that followed.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I've wanted to do this and come up with this code:
private void generatebut_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
string[] strRandomIdeas;<br />
strRandomIdeas = new string[10];<br />
<br />
strRandomIdeas[0] = "Bus";<br />
strRandomIdeas[1] = "Animal";<br />
strRandomIdeas[2] = "Surfing";<br />
strRandomIdeas[3] = "Ride";<br />
strRandomIdeas[4] = "Vehicle";<br />
strRandomIdeas[5] = "House";<br />
strRandomIdeas[6] = "Gaming";<br />
strRandomIdeas[7] = "Flying";<br />
strRandomIdeas[8] = "Entertainment";<br />
strRandomIdeas[9] = "Music";<br />
<br />
Random RandomIdea = new Random(strRandomIdeas);<br />
txb1.Text = RandomIdea.Next();<br />
txb2.Text = RandomIdea.Next();<br />
<br />
if (txb1.Text = txb2.Text)<br />
{<br />
txb2.Text = RandomIdea.Next();<br />
}
However, I get numerous build errors and it basically doesn't work, can someone help me??
|
|
|
|
|
Well if you look at what Random.Next() returns, that would be your first spot to check, as its returning a random number and from your code that random number is going to be all over the place.
Read this for generating random numbers:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.random.aspx[^]
Then adjust your code accordingly.
Once you have your random number, use that as your index for your strRandomIdeas array.
Also when comparing string, you should use the string.compare method.
if(string.compare(txb1.Text, txb2.Text) == 0)<br />
{<br />
}<br />
else<br />
{<br />
}
Just because we can; does not mean we should.
|
|
|
|
|
Thankyou for the help, but the problematic code is this:
Random RandomIdea = new Random(strRandomIdeas);<br />
txb1.Text = RandomIdea.Next();<br />
txb2.Text = RandomIdea.Next();
Random commands are a bit confusing and this just expands the problem, I've checked the msdn site, but it didn't help, is there any way I can debug this?
|
|
|
|
|
Rewrite your code as follows:
private void generatebut_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
string[] strRandomIdeas;<br />
strRandomIdeas = new string[10];<br />
<br />
strRandomIdeas[0] = "Bus";<br />
strRandomIdeas[1] = "Animal";<br />
strRandomIdeas[2] = "Surfing";<br />
strRandomIdeas[3] = "Ride";<br />
strRandomIdeas[4] = "Vehicle";<br />
strRandomIdeas[5] = "House";<br />
strRandomIdeas[6] = "Gaming";<br />
strRandomIdeas[7] = "Flying";<br />
strRandomIdeas[8] = "Entertainment";<br />
strRandomIdeas[9] = "Music";<br />
<br />
Random RandomIdea = new Random();<br />
<br />
int indexID = RandomIdea.Next(0,strRandomIdeas.Length -1);<br />
<br />
string Text1 = strRandomIdeas[indexID];<br />
<br />
indexID = RandomIdea.Next(0, strRandomIdeas.Length - 1);<br />
string Text2 = strRandomIdeas[indexID];<br />
<br />
if (string.Compare(Text1, Text2) == 0)<br />
{<br />
indexID = RandomIdea.Next(0, strRandomIdeas.length -1);<br />
Text2 = strRandomIdeas[indexID];<br />
}<br />
}
This code compiles and returns your random strings.
Just because we can; does not mean we should.
modified on Friday, December 28, 2007 11:54:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
DSdragondude wrote: Random RandomIdea = new Random(strRandomIdeas);
The documentation clearly shows:
1. Random constructor takes either no argument or an integer.
2. Random.Next() always returns an integer.
Hence, use the array bounds to limit the range Random.Next() will use, and appply its
return value as an index in your array.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
This is more of a theory question i guess. I've recently been looking at some old code and trying to improve it. I've always been told you should dispose of objects once you've finished with them, but never have as i've only been working on small projects.
However, its came time for me to start improving on this. In one section of my code i create a List<string> and pass it to my sql statement builder. My understanding is that now i have 2 Lists in memory, one used in the sql statements method and one in the method i used to create it.
Would it be better to pass it to the sql statements method as a ref and then clear its list at the end of the method i created it in? or just pass it normally and clear it in both methods?
Regards,
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
|
gareth111 wrote: create a List and pass it to my sql statement builder
If you're really interested in building better code, it would be wiser to use Stored Procedures and avoid other messes also.
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Mark,
I have used stored procs in other projects. The reason im not using them is because i think its far easier to use a sql statement class that has 5 or so methods than to use stored procs that has 20 or so.
Regards,
Gareth
|
|
|
|
|
gareth111 wrote: The reason im not using them is because i think its far easier to use a sql statement class that has 5 or so methods than to use stored procs that has 20 or so.
What do the number of methods have to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Because its easier to maintain.
Example: My project can connect to 5 different databases, which have 5 tables, so i need to create 25 stored procs just to do some simple select * from. With the sql builder class, i have 1 method.
It might just be me, but that seems like in the long run that will save me time. Their might be advantages of splitting it up so the data layer is actually handled by the db server, i am not saying there isn't.
Regards,
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
|
gareth111 wrote: Example: My project can connect to 5 different databases, which have 5 tables, so i need to create 25 stored procs just to do some simple select * from. With the sql builder class, i have 1 method.
What!?! That doesn't add up at all. If all the databases are in SQL Server you can access 5 databases from within one stored proc. Simply multiplying the number of databases by the number of tables does not give you the number of stored procedures. I have no idea where you logic is going with that but it isn't in the right direction.
As for using the SQL Builder class...
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: That doesn't add up at all
Must have been a simple mistake, like clicking 1 rather than 5 
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I have no idea where you logic is going with that but it isn't in the right direction.
Same here.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
What you are referring to is what I believe is called "Garbage Collection".
This used to be very important in C as resources could easily be taken up very quickly if one did not dispose objects once they had been used.
Although with C# you can still dispose object I understand this not to be necessary as the .NET framework takes care of this for you.
With regards to passing the list by reference - yes only 1 copy would persist.
If you were coding in C then this might be necessary, however with C# I think the saving would be minimal.
Also with regards to future development when someone else looks at your code they may be puzzled as to why the list is passed by reference.
I am still learning C#, so I imagine one of the more experienced coders may have more valuable information.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
yes, you should call Close() or Dispose() on those objects that offer them, when
you no longer need the object.
no, passing an reference type (i.e.an instance of a class) to some method does not create
another object; to create an object you must either use the "new" keyword, or call a
creational method (one that has a "new" inside, as in a Factory pattern), which I hope
has "Create" in its name.
no, passing a reference type with the "ref" keyword does not change the object count;
the only thing it does is it allows the called method to not only modify the object,
but also the caller's variable that references that object.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Luc,
Thank you for clarifying.
Regards,
Gareth.
|
|
|
|
|
By doing the following
BackgroundWorker syncWorker = new BackgroundWorker();<br />
syncWorker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(SynchronizeDir);<br />
syncWorker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(Synchronized);<br />
syncWorker.RunWorkerAsync(new Object[] { fromDir, toDir, filter, createRemotePath });<br />
Synchronized(syncWorker, new RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs(null, err, true));
A backgroundworker is spawned from the GUI thread into a new thread.
Is there a way to catch any errors that don't get handled by the new thread, in the GUI thread?
Google tells me the RunWorkerCompletedEventhandler (Synchronized in this case) should normally be fired and its RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs should contain the exception in the .Error field.
Rethrowing the error in the spawned thread doesn't get the exception through to the GUI thread.
Even plain ignoring the exception gives me an .Error field with null as value.
What am I doing wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what resources you have researched thus far, but this might help.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hybbz6ke.aspx[^]
You may already know this information, but reviewing MS's example may reveal what change you need to make.
Just because we can; does not mean we should.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is in the category of examples I found all over the net.
So I figure I'm doing something very wrong...
edit: for some reason the code tags don't interpret the indentation on this post ...
private void SynchronizeDir(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
string from = (string)((object[])e.Argument)[0];<br />
string to = (string)((object[])e.Argument)[1];<br />
string filter = (string)((object[])e.Argument)[2];<br />
bool createRemotePath = (bool)((object[])e.Argument)[3];<br />
try<br />
{<br />
SynchronizeDir(from, to, filter, createRemotePath);<br />
}<br />
catch (Exception err)<br />
{<br />
throw err;<br />
} <br />
}
To me it looks like I'm doing the same steps as in the example:
- Extract the argument(s)
- Start the time-consuming operation
- I don't handle the cancel option(yet)
In my code, after extracting the arguments, I call the regular method with those arguments and catch anny errors that normal method would throw. They get caught as they normally are.. But what should I do to make the Synchronized event trigger with the .Error field filled in.
Right now the program just stops on the error throwing...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
